NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[Gedunker]

I'll stand by my statement. Yes, there were differences in the situations but essentially it comes down to troops in a war zone misidentified a civilian aircraft and shot it down. There's no "day and night" between the two incidents. Both are the kinds of tragedies that often happen when people, some of whom may be barely competent with the equipment they're using, are put in stressful situations. I would certainly call soldiers/sailors in a war zone fitting that description.

One major difference: we ultimately accepted responsibility for the shoot-down of IA655 and paid out to the victims' families: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 I doubt the Russians or Ukrainian separatists will ever accept responsibility or remunerate MH17 families.

 

[The One]

But.....

One major difference: we ultimately accepted responsibility for the shoot-down of IA655 and paid out to the victims' families: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 I doubt the Russians or Ukrainian separatists will ever accept responsibility or remunerate MH17 families.

On the other hand, I'm sure the Russians and Ukrainian separatists will get awards for their actions, just like the captain of the USS Vincennes:-c
http://articles.dailypress.com/1990-04-15/news/9004110407_1_uss-vincennes-iranian-airbus-rogers

and;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/flight801/stories/july88crash.htm

Reagan, who was spending the Fourth of July holiday at Camp David, said the Iranian aircraft "was headed directly for the Vincennes" and had "failed to heed repeated warnings." The cruiser, he said, fired "to protect itself against possible attack."

Asked if the Vincennes' skipper had been prudent or impetuous by firing at a plane he could not see, Crowe replied: "The commanding officer conducted himself with circumspection and, considering the information that was available to him, followed his authorities and acted with good judgment at a very trying period and under very trying circumstances . . . . Not only was he following this aircraft and concerned about it," but he also "was engaged on the surface with Iranian units."

Crowe said it was "logical" for the skipper to assume an aircraft that was coming down from the sky at high speed and would not respond to radio warnings was putting the Vincennes "in jeopardy."

 

[michaelskis]

Personally, I think that the two incidences have frightening similarities. Further proof that we don't need to be in most of the places that we are in.





Over the past several days I thought a lot about the immigration issue. The problem with the process is the bureaucratic limbo that too many people get stuck in and I don't think that people understand the process. When my ancestors immigrated here from Ireland, it was not a difficult process to become a US citizen. I do think that we need to have an understanding of the basic rules and laws of this country, and I think that understanding the history is helpful, but the focus should be on "How to be a US Citizen". I think that we need to simplify the process with the following:

• Simplify the process for work visas and include provisions that pay taxes while they are here working. A background check should be included in this to make sure that they are not a terrorist. To do this, there needs to be open lines of communication with the CIA, FBI, and all the other 'protection' agencies.
• Streamline the process process for those who wish to become US citizens legally. Once again, a detailed background check, classes to understand the basic laws of the country, and a text to make sure that they understand those laws. While I think history is important, I think there should be more focus on current laws and understanding the basic day to day operations of most people.
• Let illegals get into the process without deportation if they get a current work visa, unless they are flagged for national security reasons. Why should we deport everyone?
• Set up a probationary period while they are here before they become a US citizen. If they commit a felony, they are deported and have to wait 25 years before reapplying for citizenship or work visa. If they commit 3 misdemeanors, then they are deported and have to wait 5 years before reapplying for citizenship or work visa. Once they become US citizens, they would be prosecuted the same as any other US citizen.

I think that if they are willing to obey the laws and be productive, tax paying, members of society, why shouldn't we let them into the US?

I wonder how many people who were born and raised could pass the test

What are your thoughts?

 

[Suburb Repairman]

I think that if they are willing to obey the laws and be productive, tax paying, members of society, why shouldn't we let them into the US?

I wonder how many people who were born and raised could pass the test

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that your thoughts on immigration are logical and in-line with probably 75% or more of current American citizens. The problem is a GOP that wholesale rejects any pragmatic, rational approach to immigration. In fact, the GOP's attitude about the child refugees (and that is absolutely what they are) is downright un-Christian, unethical and immoral. It comes down to racism, pure and simple. The phrase "securing the border" amounts to nothing more than a dog whistle, in my opinion.

People need empathy--think like the parents of these kids. They are handing a stack of money to a stranger and sending the kid off on his/her own on a very dangerous journey to the U.S. crossing multiple countries. They do this because they are that desperate to get their kids away from the gang violence. El Salvador or Honduras I think is actually the most dangerous place on earth right now based on violent crime rate. Basically, these parents would rather risk sending the kid alone to the U.S. than wait for him/her to become a statistic or be forced into a gang. But the GOP only cares about children when they are inside the womb of an American citizen.

Also, the gang issues causing this are a prime example of the external effects of American policies (especially drug) and the important role foreign aid can play. El Salvador, Honduras & Guatemala are probably closer to being Somalia than they are to being a functional government in dealing with the violence & cartels.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Personally, I think that the two incidences have frightening similarities. Further proof that we don't need to be in most of the places that we are in.





Over the past several days I thought a lot about the immigration issue. The problem with the process is the bureaucratic limbo that too many people get stuck in and I don't think that people understand the process. When my ancestors immigrated here from Ireland, it was not a difficult process to become a US citizen. I do think that we need to have an understanding of the basic rules and laws of this country, and I think that understanding the history is helpful, but the focus should be on "How to be a US Citizen". I think that we need to simplify the process with the following:

• Simplify the process for work visas and include provisions that pay taxes while they are here working. A background check should be included in this to make sure that they are not a terrorist. To do this, there needs to be open lines of communication with the CIA, FBI, and all the other 'protection' agencies.
• Streamline the process process for those who wish to become US citizens legally. Once again, a detailed background check, classes to understand the basic laws of the country, and a text to make sure that they understand those laws. While I think history is important, I think there should be more focus on current laws and understanding the basic day to day operations of most people.
• Let illegals get into the process without deportation if they get a current work visa, unless they are flagged for national security reasons. Why should we deport everyone?
• Set up a probationary period while they are here before they become a US citizen. If they commit a felony, they are deported and have to wait 25 years before reapplying for citizenship or work visa. If they commit 3 misdemeanors, then they are deported and have to wait 5 years before reapplying for citizenship or work visa. Once they become US citizens, they would be prosecuted the same as any other US citizen.

I think that if they are willing to obey the laws and be productive, tax paying, members of society, why shouldn't we let them into the US?

I wonder how many people who were born and raised could pass the test

What are your thoughts?

I agree with this approach

 

[michaelskis]

I am getting even more frustrated with the republicans. I think it is a waste of time and money for them to be perusing a lawsuit against the President.

If they want to do it, they should do it on their own time and their own dime. Not the tax payers.

 

[michaelskis]

Have you ever crossed partly lines in a primary to vote for the weakest candidate? Apparently that is what my neighbor did and was bragging about it to me. He always votes for the most liberal candidate, but voted in the republican primary because there was no really contested democratic races. I know of republicans that have done the same thing in the past.

Personally, while it may be legal, I think it is unethical.


*I will be voting later tonight in my local primary.

 

[WSU MUP Student]

Have you ever crossed partly lines in a primary to vote for the weakest candidate? Apparently that is what my neighbor did and was bragging about it to me. He always votes for the most liberal candidate, but voted in the republican primary because there was no really contested democratic races. I know of republicans that have done the same thing in the past.

Personally, while it may be legal, I think it is unethical.


*I will be voting later tonight in my local primary.

I happily do it nearly every time if my preferred candidate at the top of the ballot is running unopposed (or may as well be) and the other party's race is particularly close. I see absolutely nothing unethical about this. It does not break a law, does not give any one candidate any unfair advantage, and is not a tactic that is unavailable to other voters.

This has been going on for decades in many states and I often wonder if enough voters do this that it has actually ever made a real difference in the outcome of the general election, especially in a gubernatorial, senatorial, or presidential race.

 

[michaelskis]

I happily do it nearly every time if my preferred candidate at the top of the ballot is running unopposed (or may as well be) and the other party's race is particularly close. I see absolutely nothing unethical about this. It does not break a law, does not give any one candidate any unfair advantage, and is not a tactic that is unavailable to other voters.

This has been going on for decades in many states and I often wonder if enough voters do this that it has actually ever made a real difference in the outcome of the general election, especially in a gubernatorial, senatorial, or presidential race.

I agree, at least here it might not be illegal. However I having voted strait ticket in forever, so for me it is not about the part but rather the candidate. (Last 3 City Council people that I have voted for have actually been Democrat and County is 50/50 right now)

 

[michaelskis]

Dartmouth College will not let a student carry a concealed weapon to protect herself while on campus, even if she is legally able to get the licence to carry.

LINK to full story

In the meantime, Woolrich intends to return to Dartmouth this fall, and is challenging the school’s gun policy.

“Whenever I asked them to obtain authorization on campus to carry a concealed weapon, they told me ‘No way,’” she said. “No appeals process.”

She said a Dartmouth security representative told her she could call for a security escort if she felt unsafe. “I’ve done this, and I’ve gotten responses such as, ‘You can’t keep calling us all the time,’ or ‘You can only call after 9 p.m.’ I’d like to say that my stalker doesn't really care what time it is.”

"The safety and security of all Dartmouth students is a top priority," the university told TODAY in a statement, noting that it could not speak to Woolrich's case specifically, due to privacy issues. "Any student who reports being stalked is provided with individualized attention and heightened protection. If there are improvements to our security services that we can make, we will.

This is one of those interesting situations of private property rights v public property rights. If it was a private college (which it was at one point) then I would say that the private land owners have a right to say no guns. However, it is now a public university. That is where it changes. I do not believe that they should prohibit the possession of concealed weapons if a person is legally able to obtain a licence recognized in that state.

What are your thoughts about concealed weapons on campuses of public universities if a person is legally able to carry off campus?

 

[Bubba]

Dartmouth College will not let a student carry a concealed weapon to protect herself while on campus, even if she is legally able to get the licence to carry.

This is one of those interesting situations of private property rights v public property rights. If it was a private college (which it was at one point) then I would say that the private land owners have a right to say no guns. However, it is now a public university.

Um, Dartmouth is a private college, per their own website...

http://dartmouth.edu/dartmouth-glance

 

[NHPlanner]

Dartmouth has NEVER been a public university. It's been private since the 1760's.

 

[michaelskis]

Dartmouth has NEVER been a public university. It's been private since the 1760's.

You are correct. I confused it with U-Mass Dartmouth and the Dartmouth College v. Woodward case.

In this context, I agree, if Dartmouth does not want to allow guns on campus, it is their private property rights to say so.

Does not change the question though, should public colleges allow concealed weapons on campuses if a person is licences to carry them off campus.

Now that you two pointed out my error (which was an error), hopefully you will answer the question.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

You are correct. I confused it with U-Mass Dartmouth and the Dartmouth College v. Woodward case.

In this context, I agree, if Dartmouth does not want to allow guns on campus, it is their private property rights to say so.

Does not change the question though, should public colleges allow concealed weapons on campuses if a person is licences to carry them off campus.

Now that you two pointed out my error (which was an error), hopefully you will answer the question.

I would not be OK with concealed weapons on campus. My basic reason is that I have a CHL and felt it was way too easy to get. My second, and potentially more important reason, is that it makes it exceptionally difficult for responding police to tell friend from foe. Not such a big deal in a simpler situation like a mugging or robbery, but mass casualty types of shooting situations are approached in an entirely different way by police and they desperately need an easy way to tell friend from foe.

 

[The One]

Corporate Welfare

Proof that corporate greed is to blame
Proof that public SUBSIDIES and corporate welfare goes straight to pure profit

Check out the coin graph just below this lovely text.
"In the McDonald’s case, an employee help line offered information about receiving food stamps and applying for Medicaid. A 2013 study from the National Employment Law Project found that employees of McDonald’s alone receive a total of $1.2 billion in public assistance benefits annually. This, despite the fact that McDonald’s made $5.46 billion in profits in FY 12, and its CEO Donald Thompson made $13.7 million.

According to our friends at Americans for Tax Fairness, the annual cost to taxpayers of Walmart workers relying on public assistance programs due to low wages and benefits is $6.2 billion, even though Walmart made $16 billion in profits last year (other tax breaks to the Walmart corporation and the Walton family cost the U.S. several billion more, but that’s a topic for another blog post). In fact, Oxfam America’s study on “Working Poor in America,” tells us that 32 million low-wage workers have to turn to food stamps just to have enough food in their households."

http://www.chn.org/2014/08/06/head-...bsidies-employers-make-billions/#.U-OUNqOEv2c

 

[NHPlanner]

You are correct. I confused it with U-Mass Dartmouth and the Dartmouth College v. Woodward case.

In this context, I agree, if Dartmouth does not want to allow guns on campus, it is their private property rights to say so.

Does not change the question though, should public colleges allow concealed weapons on campuses if a person is licences to carry them off campus.

Now that you two pointed out my error (which was an error), hopefully you will answer the question.

No. This, because of the mass concentration of students and others on campuses:

My second, and potentially more important reason, is that it makes it exceptionally difficult for responding police to tell friend from foe. Not such a big deal in a simpler situation like a mugging or robbery, but mass casualty types of shooting situations are approached in an entirely different way by police and they desperately need an easy way to tell friend from foe.

Also, this: http://cms.bsu.edu/news/articles/20...niversity-presidents-dont-want-guns-on-campus

 

[michaelskis]

Proof that corporate greed is to blame
Proof that public SUBSIDIES and corporate welfare goes straight to pure profit

Check out the coin graph just below this lovely text.
"In the McDonald's case, an employee help line offered information about receiving food stamps and applying for Medicaid. A 2013 study from the National Employment Law Project found that employees of McDonald's alone receive a total of $1.2 billion in public assistance benefits annually. This, despite the fact that McDonald's made $5.46 billion in profits in FY 12, and its CEO Donald Thompson made $13.7 million.

According to our friends at Americans for Tax Fairness, the annual cost to taxpayers of Walmart workers relying on public assistance programs due to low wages and benefits is $6.2 billion, even though Walmart made $16 billion in profits last year (other tax breaks to the Walmart corporation and the Walton family cost the U.S. several billion more, but that's a topic for another blog post). In fact, Oxfam America's study on "Working Poor in America," tells us that 32 million low-wage workers have to turn to food stamps just to have enough food in their households."

http://www.chn.org/2014/08/06/head-...bsidies-employers-make-billions/#.U-OUNqOEv2c

I think you make great points here, and this is one of many reasons why I spend a few extra dollars to shop local.

I wonder what the franchise agreements for McDonald's looks like in terms of percentage of sales or profits that goes back to corporate. I also wonder what is to stop McDonald's or Walmart from raising prices to offset the increase in minimum wage. Thus reducing the buying power for everyone else who shops there. (Personally, I don't)

NHPlanner, thank you for answering the question. In terms of a concentration of students can you expand on that point a bit? I don't fully understand the direction that you are going there.

 

[wahday]

I would not be OK with concealed weapons on campus. My basic reason is that I have a CHL and felt it was way too easy to get. My second, and potentially more important reason, is that it makes it exceptionally difficult for responding police to tell friend from foe. Not such a big deal in a simpler situation like a mugging or robbery, but mass casualty types of shooting situations are approached in an entirely different way by police and they desperately need an easy way to tell friend from foe.

I completely agree and I would think all first responders would be very concerned for these same reasons.

Another reason I would not be in support of this is the higher than average risk of suicide among college students (citation)

More than half of 26,000 students across 70 colleges and universities who completed a survey on suicidal experiences reported having at least one episode of suicidal thinking at some point in their lives. Furthermore, 15 percent of students surveyed reported having seriously considered attempting suicide and more than 5 percent reported making a suicide attempt at least once in their lifetime.

This is a tumultuous time in the emotional development of young people. These thoughts and the potential to act on them typically fades with time and perspective (which may even just be a few hours), but if in that moment of duress one has access to a gun, the results could be catastrophic. Depression, despair and suicidal thoughts can also go hand-in-hand with desires to cause others harm before taking your own life. Personally, I would fear this risk would be higher than the potential benefit (if that's even the right term) that an armed citizen might stop such an event with their own gun.

College is also a notoriously irresponsible time as it relates to consumption of alcohol and other drugs. Combine that with firearms close at hand and I think you are asking for a disaster.

 

[Linda_D]

Allowing concealed weapons on campus is an invitation to disaster. Think about it.

• You are talking about a large concentration of students primarily between the ages of 17 and 22, a large percentage of whom are living on their own in campus housing, often for the first time, without parental oversight and with alcohol and drugs easily available.
• You are talking about students and/or their parents becoming angry with the Financial Aid staff because they didn't get expected FA.
• You are talking about students and/or their parents becoming angry with the Business Office staff because they're expected to pay their bills.
• You are talking about students and/or their parents becoming angry with the Registrar's staff because Johnny or Susie has been dismissed because of poor grades or bad behavior.
• You are talking about students confronting individual instructors because they didn't like their grades.
• You are talking about students who may, for the first times in their lives, have to deal with people of different races,religions, political views,social values, etc.
• Some aspects of college culture on some campuses, most infamously Greek organizations and athletic teams, too often encourage hazing, bullying, binge drinking, and other types of bad behavior.

And you want to add concealed weapons to that mix?

 

[Maister]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/russ...n-retaliation-to-western-sanctions-1407403035

So Russia in a most curious move bans food imports from the west?

 

[michaelskis]

Allowing concealed weapons on campus is an invitation to disaster. Think about it.

• You are talking about a large concentration of students primarily between the ages of 17 and 22, a large percentage of whom are living on their own in campus housing, often for the first time, without parental oversight and with alcohol and drugs easily available.
• You are talking about students and/or their parents becoming angry with the Financial Aid staff because they didn't get expected FA.
• You are talking about students and/or their parents becoming angry with the Business Office staff because they're expected to pay their bills.
• You are talking about students and/or their parents becoming angry with the Registrar's staff because Johnny or Susie has been dismissed because of poor grades or bad behavior.
• You are talking about students confronting individual instructors because they didn't like their grades.
• You are talking about students who may, for the first times in their lives, have to deal with people of different races,religions, political views,social values, etc.
• Some aspects of college culture on some campuses, most infamously Greek organizations and athletic teams, too often encourage hazing, bullying, binge drinking, and other types of bad behavior.

And you want to add concealed weapons to that mix?

Good Point, laws preventing underage drinking and drug abuse work so well on college campuses and those who have concealed licences are just reckless fools. (LINK)

 

[ColoGI]

What are your thoughts about concealed weapons on campuses of public universities if a person is legally able to carry off campus?

My thought is my kid won't be going to that college.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Good Point, laws preventing underage drinking and drug abuse work so well on college campuses and those who have concealed licences are just reckless fools. (LINK)

Oh look everybody, Mskiis stirred the pot once again on guns. Come on y'all, let all feed the troll.:not::wall:

 

[btrage]

 

[Gedunker]

[OT]

Dartmouth has NEVER been a public university. It's been private since the 1760's.

Well, it isn't like New Hampshire didn't try to take Dartmouth over ... see Dartmouth College v. Woodward, which of course gave us the famous lines "It is, sir, as I have said, a small school. And yet, there are those who love it."[/OT]

 

[Tide]

In other news, I voted today in the TN primary and local elections. Split ticket all the way.

 

[WSU MUP Student]

In other news, I voted today in the TN primary and local elections. Split ticket all the way.

Voting on a Thursday? Splitting tickets in a primary? Folks in The South cannot get anything right! Is there no rule of law down there?

 

[Tide]

Voting on a Thursday? Splitting tickets in a primary? Folks in The South cannot get anything right! Is there no rule of law down there?

It's also the first day of school for many kids in the state too. Way too early for this NJ Ex Pat's blood.

I never understood multiple voting days per year. I get Primaries and General Elections but shouldn't everything be decided on one ballot in November?

 

[michaelskis]

Oh look everybody, Mskiis stirred the pot once again on guns. Come on y'all, let all feed the troll.:not::wall:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g9Tc1oeMc4

Sure, right after you tell me more about how "No Gun" signs stop mass shootings.

 

[btrage]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g9Tc1oeMc4



Sure, right after you tell me more about how "No Gun" signs stop mass shootings.

The problem is way before it gets to signage. The problem is way too many guns and gun nuts who exacerbate the gun culture in this country. Keeping putting guns up on a pedestal and things will only get worse.

And "improving our mental health system" isn't the answer either. We'll never be able to completely solve it (like poverty), and as long as guns are in abundance, easy to get and glorified, unstable people will be able to find them.

Getting rid of guns is the only answer.

 

[giff57]

Getting rid of guns is the only answer.

How do you propose that be done? How about we ask everyone nicely to turn them in? I am sure the criminals would be happy to do that. As I have said, I know way more than I want to know about the care the mentally ill get in this country. Fixing that is way easier than collecting every gun that is out there.

 

[btrage]

How do you propose that be done? How about we ask everyone nicely to turn them in? I am sure the criminals would be happy to do that. As I have said, I know way more than I want to know about the care the mentally ill get in this country. Fixing that is way easier than collecting every gun that is out there.

I just don't like how the gun nuts hide behind the mental health situation as the only means of fixing the problem. It's that, plus less guns, plus a divergence away from our Wild West gun culture.

 

[michaelskis]

The problem is way before it gets to signage. The problem is way too many guns and gun nuts who exacerbate the gun culture in this country. Keeping putting guns up on a pedestal and things will only get worse.

In theory, this makes sense, however can you point to statistics showing an increase in gun crimes by CPL holders? Here are some facts that show otherwise. Furthermore, with concealed carry laws that require people to take a class (like the one we have in Michigan), people are educated on how to be safe with their gun and howto store it properly.

And "improving our mental health system" isn't the answer either. We'll never be able to completely solve it (like poverty), and as long as guns are in abundance, easy to get and glorified, unstable people will be able to find them.

Same could be said for knives. There have been quite a few stabbings lately too. improving mental health is just one component and I understand that we will not solve the issue. Part of it is a social issue. Like I mentioned in the youth crime rates, there is a correlation between absent fathers and youth violence. Perhaps we should have more programs to keep dads in their kids lives unless that interaction is detrimental to the child.

Getting rid of guns is the only answer.

I am going to go all out and call BS on this statement and say that you don't understand the problem if that is your answer.

 

[giff57]

I just don't like how the gun nuts hide behind the mental health situation as the only means of fixing the problem. It's that, plus less guns, plus a divergence away from our Wild West gun culture.

Part of the problem is that the federal legislature does not have the balls to do anything. 99% of the gun owners are ok with universal background checks, there should be no reason that we cannot get that passed. There are ways to beat the "slippery slope" argument and reach some sort of compromise.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g9Tc1oeMc4



Sure, right after you tell me more about how "No Gun" signs stop mass shootings.

Keeping with the equine theme. I'd rather whine like a mule than bray like an ass.

 

[michaelskis]

Keeping with the equine theme. I'd rather whine like a mule than bray like an ass.

So is that why it is the mascot of the democratic party?

Part of the problem is that the federal legislature does not have the balls to do anything. 99% of the gun owners are ok with universal background checks, there should be no reason that we cannot get that passed. There are ways to beat the "slippery slope" argument and reach some sort of compromise.

I agree. But the reason that it doesn't get passed is because of the special interest groups who listen to that 1%. And politicians will listen to special interest groups way before they will listen to the people.


I was also thinking about this a bit more on my commute this morning. Almost every person that I know that has a CPL, had already owned at least one hand gun. The process, including detailed background checks, let them carry their handguns in public, but in a concealed manner. I don't have the statistics for the nation, but if responsible gun owners take another step to responsibly carry their guns in public, how is that making us less safe? I would be more worried about the ones who don't have a CPL.

 

[btrage]

I am going to go all out and call BS on this statement and say that you don't understand the problem if that is your answer.

I will claim the same with you.

 

[DVD]

Sadly banning all guns is an answer. It's worked in several countries including Australia who banned guns after their first mass shooting. They haven't had a mass shooting since. The problem is that our culture won't accept the answer of no guns because of lame talking points like then only criminals would have guns and the world would be more dangerous. There is enough evidence out there that says those talking points are wrong. Personally I don't believe we need to ban all weapons. Just limit them and require registration. People want rifles to go hunting. You don't need fully automatic anything to go hunting. You don't need anything that can carry more than a couple shots. If you don't bag your deer in the first shot you'll be lucky to get a second. For pistols, some people feel safer having them, but you can limit the clips to just a few rounds. The idea is to protect yourself and get you out a the situation, not to unload Dirty Harry style and "save the day". And please don't use the knives kill people too argument. There will always be violence in our world and people will always invent ways of killing people, but at least with a knife I feel like I have a fighting chance against you and there haven't exactly been a lot of mass murder committed with a knife. I think the first thing is to end the mass murders through proper gun regulation - whatever that is. Then we can talk about individual murders and a way to reduce that. With regulating for the mentally ill, good idea, but near impossible to execute. Yes, we can deny guns to those that are registered as mentally incompetent to own one, but then we have to deal with their rights we may be violating and the fact that they may have purchased the gun before they were mentally ill. It's not like I have any answers, but can we at least start with gun registration? As a government employee I promise I will not be coming to take your guns away.

 

[michaelskis]

I will claim the same with you.

OK, let's look at the numbers, according to the Violence Policy Center, 644 people have been killed by people who have a concealed carry permit since 2007 in the US. In that same time period, approximately 99,000 have been murdered in the US and that number has been decreasing by around 500 people per year since 2007. That would mean that CPL holders account for 0.65% of murders in the US.

The GAO estimates that there are around 8,000,000 concealed carry permits currently active in the US. Thus, 0.0081% of CLP owners have committed a murder since 2007.

Between 2007 and 2012, background checks for gun sales has been increasing by 1,126,240.6 guns per year. These are only numbers in in states that require background checks, and for guns that require background checks, so the total is likely to be quite a bit more. But in 2012, there were 16,808,538 background checks for gun sales completed.

Cities that had no gun laws had some of the highest murder rates and most of the mass murders in the US have occurred in gun free zones.

In some places, Sheriffs departments are telling people to arm themselves:
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/31/170727538/milwaukee-sheriff-advises-residents-to-arm-themselves
http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Art...4083.112112-Harnett-Sheriff-Arm-yourself.html
http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/detroit-police-chief-to-citizens-arm-yourselves/


More so, the following links claim that Concealed Carry laws prevent crimes from occurring or escalating:
http://humanevents.com/2014/01/03/study-shows-concealed-carry-laws-result-in-fewer-murders/
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/236392921.html
http://marquettewire.org/2012/02/14...events-more-crime-than-it-creates-study-says/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/16/charlie-blackmore-marine-veteran-draws-gun_n_2891176.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/concealed-weapons-save-lives-article-1.1121161
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/heathe...ry-permit-stops-6-robbers-in-houston-n1667028
http://www.policeone.com/off-duty/articles/6062966-Do-legally-armed-citizens-prevent-crime/
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/opinion/columnists/article_ba2d7bb8-2faa-5686-bc79-85d9361f62d4.html
(there is a about a 10,000 more, should I keep posting links?)

So, let's recap. Statistics show CPL holders commit less crimes, stop crimes, and arming yourself is encouraged by at least 3 sheriffs offices who say that 911 will not save you. I think I understand the problem just fine.

Sadly banning all guns is an answer. It's worked in several countries including Australia who banned guns after their first mass shooting. They haven't had a mass shooting since. The problem is that our culture won't accept the answer of no guns because of lame talking points like then only criminals would have guns and the world would be more dangerous. There is enough evidence out there that says those talking points are wrong. Personally I don't believe we need to ban all weapons. Just limit them and require registration. People want rifles to go hunting. You don't need fully automatic anything to go hunting. You don't need anything that can carry more than a couple shots. If you don't bag your deer in the first shot you'll be lucky to get a second. For pistols, some people feel safer having them, but you can limit the clips to just a few rounds. The idea is to protect yourself and get you out a the situation, not to unload Dirty Harry style and "save the day". And please don't use the knives kill people too argument. There will always be violence in our world and people will always invent ways of killing people, but at least with a knife I feel like I have a fighting chance against you and there haven't exactly been a lot of mass murder committed with a knife. I think the first thing is to end the mass murders through proper gun regulation - whatever that is. Then we can talk about individual murders and a way to reduce that. With regulating for the mentally ill, good idea, but near impossible to execute. Yes, we can deny guns to those that are registered as mentally incompetent to own one, but then we have to deal with their rights we may be violating and the fact that they may have purchased the gun before they were mentally ill. It's not like I have any answers, but can we at least start with gun registration? As a government employee I promise I will not be coming to take your guns away.

I think that background checks and gun registration is an acceptable thing. We have it in MI and it is a very rare case that I hear about someone having problems with the system to buy the guns. I do hear that politics makes some CPL waiting times too long, but there is a bill to address that at put it in the hands of the State Police instead of the Sheriffs Departments.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

It is harder to buy Sudafed in this country than it is to buy a gun. There is more involved in buying a car than a gun. That is a problem.

The NRA does not represent actual gun owners, only gun manufacturers. Most people, including the NRA's membership, are too stupid to realize this.

People's obsession with guns is crossing over into idolatry; people worship these things like they would Jesus. That is indicative that this country has a serious cultural problem with guns that needs to be addressed.

If you have a problem with background checks to buy a gun, then you are a mentally unstable paranoid and probably shouldn't own a gun. Same thing for registration.

I firmly believe that each gun should carry insurance much like a car. They are a liability and increase risk, especially accidental shootings.

CHLs are far too easy to get. Seriously, come get a CHL in Texas... it is a freaking joke.

 

[michaelskis]

To change gears, ISIS is telling Christians in Iraq to get out or die. Obama is offering air support. CNN LINK

What are your thoughts on this situation? Should the US get involved?

My position is that the US should step in only as part of a UN lead effort, and even with that our involvement should be limited. I think that is happening there is horrible, but the US is not the worlds police department. The UN needs to step up. If ISIS attacks the US directly, then we should destroy them. But until that happens we should only be involved if it is as part of a larger global effort.

 

[The One]

Yup

It is harder to buy Sudafed in this country than it is to buy a gun. There is more involved in buying a car than a gun. That is a problem.

The NRA does not represent actual gun owners, only gun manufacturers. Most people, including the NRA's membership, are too stupid to realize this.

People's obsession with guns is crossing over into idolatry; people worship these things like they would Jesus. That is indicative that this country has a serious cultural problem with guns that needs to be addressed.

If you have a problem with background checks to buy a gun, then you are a mentally unstable paranoid and probably shouldn't own a gun. Same thing for registration.

I firmly believe that each gun should carry insurance much like a car. They are a liability and increase risk, especially accidental shootings.

CHLs are far too easy to get. Seriously, come get a CHL in Texas... it is a freaking joke.

Makes way too much sense.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Nice, Ferguson is blowing up and nobody comments on it in 4 days.

The cops have gone insane. Its not even a gun issue, as the cops are clearly the irisponsible parties acting criminally, with guns. The police would be authorized to use whatever they want at any time, so the idea of gun control is not even in this subject matter.

The police cheif needs to be arrested as an accessory to murder. He is clearly trying to cover for his officer. I think his hope is that he can over militarize responses in order to switch subjects and put blame on lagitimately angry people. Brown people I might add. Pure racism is at play in this community.

The police chief is using policies that are clearly ham handed and any "noncompliance" of any kind is clearly viewed as not allowed. Like eating at the McDonalds while charging your phone and filing news reports. There are so many civil rights violations hapening that the entire force of officers at the scene need to be pulled of line and arrested.

Green Bay has had their own recent occurances of over use of police force. It makes me hate them (cops). They are people, plain normal people. But they have the authority behind them of law. A cop that can't control themselves needs to be removed from the force BEFORE a young adult is murdered for walking in the street.

I talked to my nephew 2 nights ago. He seems to think white teenagers are being gunned down in the streets in vast numbers that are not being reported because they are white. Jaw dropping. Don't even know what to say at that point. Thats what is standard thought out of teabaggers.

Currently listening to MO Governor talking in press conference now. At least he acknowledges the optics but he is also doing the dance of authority.

ARREST THE MURDERER ON THE FERGUSON POLICE DEPARTMENT and the protests will simmer down and then go away quickly. Unfortunatly, the MO Governor seems to be in on the active cover up. Any other member of society would already be in custody and cooling their heals in the joint while the investigation was completed.

That kid never had any issues with discipline or the police in the past. Now we are expected to believe that when the police officer returned to get in the TWO teens faces he would suddenly attack the cop... INSIDE THE COP CAR... and needed to be gunned down. The cops are still trying to justify it by saying the cops face was bruised as if he was in a fight. SSUUUUUUURRREEEE! The cop initiated the altercation, was loosing, got even more pissed, and thought he could get away with murder.

The police had to give the body back today. We will probably find out there are entry wounds in the kids back over the next few days. The coronor wouldn't release information like that. Imagine that, it is really going to piss people off.

This press conference is really pissing me off. They keep saying that the police are experiencing gunfire, pipe bombs, and molitove cocktails. None of which can be confirmed, because they did their best to kick out the journalists so the police authorites criminal behavior could not be confirmed or observed.

Is Misouri considered the old south?

 

[michaelskis]

Nice, Ferguson is blowing up and nobody comments on it in 4 days.

The cops have gone insane. Its not even a gun issue, as the cops are clearly the irisponsible parties acting criminally, with guns. The police would be authorized to use whatever they want at any time, so the idea of gun control is not even in this subject matter.

The police cheif needs to be arrested as an accessory to murder. He is clearly trying to cover for his officer. I think his hope is that he can over militarize responses in order to switch subjects and put blame on lagitimately angry people. Brown people I might add. Pure racism is at play in this community.

The police chief is using policies that are clearly ham handed and any "noncompliance" of any kind is clearly viewed as not allowed. Like eating at the McDonalds while charging your phone and filing news reports. There are so many civil rights violations hapening that the entire force of officers at the scene need to be pulled of line and arrested.

Green Bay has had their own recent occurances of over use of police force. It makes me hate them (cops). They are people, plain normal people. But they have the authority behind them of law. A cop that can't control themselves needs to be removed from the force BEFORE a young adult is murdered for walking in the street.

I talked to my nephew 2 nights ago. He seems to think white teenagers are being gunned down in the streets in vast numbers that are not being reported because they are white. Jaw dropping. Don't even know what to say at that point. Thats what is standard thought out of teabaggers.

Currently listening to MO Governor talking in press conference now. At least he acknowledges the optics but he is also doing the dance of authority.

ARREST THE MURDERER ON THE FERGUSON POLICE DEPARTMENT and the protests will simmer down and then go away quickly. Unfortunatly, the MO Governor seems to be in on the active cover up. Any other member of society would already be in custody and cooling their heals in the joint while the investigation was completed.

That kid never had any issues with discipline or the police in the past. Now we are expected to believe that when the police officer returned to get in the TWO teens faces he would suddenly attack the cop... INSIDE THE COP CAR... and needed to be gunned down. The cops are still trying to justify it by saying the cops face was bruised as if he was in a fight. SSUUUUUUURRREEEE! The cop initiated the altercation, was loosing, got even more pissed, and thought he could get away with murder.

The police had to give the body back today. We will probably find out there are entry wounds in the kids back over the next few days. The coronor wouldn't release information like that. Imagine that, it is really going to piss people off.

This press conference is really pissing me off. They keep saying that the police are experiencing gunfire, pipe bombs, and molitove cocktails. None of which can be confirmed, because they did their best to kick out the journalists so the police authorites criminal behavior could not be confirmed or observed.

Is Misouri considered the old south?

We are taking about it in the Random Thread because I did not hear about it until today and I think it goes beyond politics and goes into right and wrong. I agree with everything you said. If they find that the kids were running away and that the entry wounds were in the back, then the officer should be charged with murder. This is also why I believe that police should wear cameras. It protects those who are doing the right thing and helps prosecute those who are doing the wrong thing. Heck, because I have guns in my house, I have a digital security camera in my home. That way if I need to use it, I know that I will have audio and likely have video of any incident that might occur.

 

[rcgplanner]

DoD, I was actually about to post on this exact issue. Things are way out of hand in Ferguson and it does seem like the police are trying to shift the blame but showing that the protesters are out of control and the only reasonable response is to move in with big guns and tactical methods. Does it not disturb anyone else that the police in Ferguson look like that are more suited for Baghdad instead of St. Louis?! Why the hell are these police wearing camo in the middle of an urban environment? It looks like a bunch of overcharged boys that are playing dress-up instead of a legitimate police force. :-@

What is most telling is that there have been no police casualties, so either the police is doing a good job keeping control OR the vast majority of the protesters are peaceful and just exercising their free speech rights. Where are the tea party protests that the police have been overstepping their bounds? Oh wait, it doesn't fit into their storyline of good old fashioned (i.e., white) American values being violated by a brown person. That being said I will give kudos to Sen. Rand Paul today who wrote a TIME op-ed stating that the police should be demilitarized.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

I saw and read Rand Pauls article. It was inciteful and spot on. I don't really trust that he would stand behind his words in any way, but I agree with them.

Hey M, how could you only have heard of what happened in Ferguson until today or last night? Very curious.

I am not even worried about how they were dressed and thier toys. I am revolted by the real issue of the cops trying to tamp down an egregiously bad situation they caused themselves. Almost as if they believe that if they can prevent protest against them personally, then the shooting of that black teen might be justified. Its 19th century brutality still in use against black people to intimidate them into silence to justify murder. There is no other way to look at it after their behavior.

It's got to be an embarassing day to be a law enforcement officer. If not, it should be.

It is a lagitimate question, where are the white gun nuts who should be showing up to defend this 66% black town from the injustice of its law enforcement? Bunch of cowards.

 

[michaelskis]

I saw and read Rand Pauls article. It was inciteful and spot on. I don't really trust that he would stand behind his words in any way, but I agree with them.

Hey M, how could you only have heard of what happened in Ferguson until today or last night? Very curious.

I am not even worried about how they were dressed and thier toys. I am revolted by the real issue of the cops trying to tamp down an egregiously bad situation they caused themselves. Almost as if they believe that if they can prevent protest against them personally, then the shooting of that black teen might be justified. Its 19th century brutality still in use against black people to intimidate them into silence to justify murder. There is no other way to look at it after their behavior.

It's got to be an embarassing day to be a law enforcement officer. If not, it should be.

It is a lagitimate question, where are the white gun nuts who should be showing up to defend this 66% black town from the injustice of its law enforcement? Bunch of cowards.

I have not heard of it because I don't watch TV, I don't listen to talk radio, and I don't spend my days surfing CNN, FOX, or NBC. I head about it because a local cop is a friend of mine and he wanted to know what concealed holster that I use. We got talking and he asked what my thoughts were about the situation. You are right, he was embarrassed because it does make all cops look bad.

As for "White Gun Nuts" standing up for these people. First of all, Colion Noir is one of my favorite gun nuts... and he is black. Second, are you saying that pro-gun supports should start a war with an enemy that has WAY more firepower? I may go shooting with AR-15s, S&W M&P's, and pistol grip 12 gauges, but realistically that is chump change against M-16 or 50 Caliber MBG. You can call me a coward if you want.

I think it says a lot when so many people who are often on opposite sides of the political spectrum are in total agreement about what is going on.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

.....As for "White Gun Nuts" standing up for these people. First of all, Colion Noir is one of my favorite gun nuts... and he is black. Second, are you saying that pro-gun supports should start a war with an enemy that has WAY more firepower? I may go shooting with AR-15s, S&W M&P's, and pistol grip 12 gauges, but realistically that is chump change against M-16 or 50 Caliber MBG. You can call me a coward if you want.

....

All that talk about tyrany and standing up for whats right. When the oportunity presents "Second, are you saying that pro-gun supports should start a war with an enemy that has WAY more firepower?". What then is all that bluster about 2nd amandment rights? Why then are gun nuts worried about having their guns taken when they won't use them to defend a community under the thumb of tyrany. BS flag. Hypocrisy and many other thoughts.

At least your friend who is a cop has some semblance of decency left in his soul.

 

[michaelskis]

All that talk about tyrany and standing up for whats right. When the oportunity presents "Second, are you saying that pro-gun supports should start a war with an enemy that has WAY more firepower?". What then is all that bluster about 2nd amandment rights? Why then are gun nuts worried about having their guns taken when they won't use them to defend a community under the thumb of tyrany. BS flag. Hypocrisy and many other thoughts.

At least your friend who is a cop has some semblance of decency left in his soul.

Your frustration with the situation is very clear, but overthrowing a police department by force is not the answer. You can call me all the names you want. I agree that this is a bad situation, and I agree that there is a very good change that there is way more to this story than the police force is willing to let on. But I know more good cops than bad cops, many would die to protect innocent people and only one of them has ever had to take a life. It is something that still haunts him, and the other guy shot him twice in the vest.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Your frustration with the situation is very clear, but overthrowing a police department by force is not the answer. You can call me all the names you want. I agree that this is a bad situation, and I agree that there is a very good change that there is way more to this story than the police force is willing to let on. But I know more good cops than bad cops, many would die to protect innocent people and only one of them has ever had to take a life. It is something that still haunts him, and the other guy shot him twice in the vest.

Tonight that police force has been overthrown. The governor had to step in and put the state highway patrol in place as the local municipal and county police force had lost its lagitimacy after the last 5 nights. When the world is watching, it became apparent that they had no lagitimacy. The BBC had extensive coverage of what was happening in Ferguson, MO. It is absolutly clear that they had lost their lagitimacy and that to stop a bloodbath from happening, the locally sanctioned gang had to be taken out of the mix. What should be legal when the cops loose their lagitimacy, are they then subject to stand your ground rules? Why not? They were definately doing their best to intimidate last several nights.

The City of St. Louis police cheif said he would not step in to help Ferguson or County law enforcement because of their overtly heavy handed tactics. He said hell no, there is so much wrong there I want no part of it.

Every person that was involved in policing last night needs to be fired.

I agree there are more good cops than bad cops. I ask then, why don't they stand up and say they can't do this crap when they know its wrong? Why can't those good cops stand up and not protect their fellow officer and instead arrest and turn that person out? Why do good cops have to have the eyes of the world on them to do the right thing? Police unions? Why not a call to banish them since they hide and defend bad cops? WAY WORSE than teachers unions as far as I can tell. I just ask, if there are so damn many good cops, why do they protect the bad ones and even worse decision making?

You should have been hearing what the Ferguson police cheif was saying today. Maedevil.

Didn't this program used to check spelling? How do you turn it on?